But Judge Col. Denise Lind found Manning guilty of other six charges under the Espionage Act.

U.S. army Pfc. Bradley Manning leaves the courthouse at Fort Meade, Md., on Tuesday after a military judge found him not guilty of aiding the enemy, but guilty of 19 other criminal counts, for handing over documents to WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange called the conviction of U.S. soldier Bradley Manning for espionage 'a dangerous precedent' and an example of 'extremism.'

Video

Bradley Manning, the former U.S. army intelligence analyst charged with the biggest leak of classified material in American history, is not guilty of aiding the enemy.

That was the much-anticipated ruling of military judge Col. Denise Lind, who acquitted the army private Tuesday on the most serious offence he faced, which carried a life sentence without parole.

But Lind found him guilty of 19 other charges, including six under the Espionage Act. Manning, 25, still faces the prospect of decades behind bars — a maximum sentence of 136 years.

Manning’s sentencing hearing begins Wednesday morning at Fort Meade, Md., bringing to an end to the case that has divided Americans, but continues to fuel what critics call the Obama administration’s “war on whistleblowers.”

If Manning had been found guilty of aiding the enemy — which would mean he had “evil intent” and knew his disclosure, once made public, would be used by groups such as Al Qaeda — the verdict could have had a serious impact on how journalists operate and the safety of their sources.

Manning had already pleaded guilty in February to 10 lesser charges, admitting to leaking some of the 700,000 classified documents, which were made public by WikiLeaks in 2010.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s Ben Wizner argued Tuesday that leaks to the press made in the public’s interest should never be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

“Since Manning already pleaded guilty to charges of leaking information — which carry significant punishment — it seems clear that the government was seeking to intimidate anyone who might consider revealing valuable information in the future,” Wizner said.

And unlike the laws that protect classified information from being leaked, New Yorker columnist Amy Davidson wrote on her blog Tuesday, “this is about judging the criminality of the leaks by how the world reacts to them.”

“Exposing a war crime, or even just bad policy decisions, may embarrass an administration, cause domestic support for a war to drop, or allow marchers in many countries to carry posters with ugly pictures. If we call that aiding the enemy, then we are closing off discourse in areas where we most need it,” Davidson wrote. “Reporters, by this theory, could be aiding the enemy, too, any time they make a government uncomfortable — which is their job.”

During Manning’s guilty plea earlier this year, he delivered an hour-long speech describing his motivation, saying he hoped to spark a national debate about what he described as his nation’s obsession with “killing and capturing people.”

Many of the leaked documents were battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, along with classified U.S. State Department diplomatic cables. Included was a 2007 video of an Apache helicopter strike in Baghdad where U.S. forces killed a least nine civilians, including a Reuters photographer and driver, before attacking a vehicle that came to their aid. The American airmen can be heard calling the targets “dead bastards,” and the video indeed sparked the national debate Manning sought.

But during his three years in harsh detention, which the UN said included “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, much of the public discussion was on Manning himself: Was he a heroic whistle-blower or a traitor who endangered national security?

During his military trial, Manning’s lawyer called him, “young, naïve, but good-intentioned.” Prosecutors called him an “anarchist” and glory hound.

“Throughout the proceedings there has been a conspicuous absence: the absence of any victim. The prosecution did not present evidence that — or even claim that — a single person came to harm as a result of Bradley Manning’s disclosures,” Assange wrote.

Manning’s family issued a statement to the Guardian newspaper, saying, “Brad loves his country and was proud to wear its uniform.”

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.